Deeble v Nott - [1941] HCA 11

RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Railways-Gratuity-Retirement from service-Incapacity-" Bodily injury

Paralysis agitans or similar disease-Aggravation or accelerationGovernment Railways Act 1912-1934 (N.S.W.) (No. 30 of 1912-No. 28 of 1934), sec. 116. SYDNEY,

Sec. 116 of the Government Railways Act 1912-1934 (N.S.W.) provides that April 7, 8, 21.

shall be payable to any officer who is incapacitated from the further discharge of his duties by reason of bodily injuries received in the course of his duty, and who retires from the service."

The plaintiff in an action for a gratuity under sec. 116 of the Government Rail ways Act was incapacitated from the further discharge of his duties by reason of a nervous disease which involved some organic deterioration of the brain cells, and retired from the service. For some years he had worked as a turner at a lathe which was defective, and in 1933 was injured while working thereat. On his return to work he was again put on to the lathe, which was still defective, but he became increasingly nervous, owing to fear of another injury, and ultimately refused to work on it any longer. He was put on another machine at heavier work. His nervous condition became steadily worse, until he became incapacitated for further work. According to the medical evidence, the plain- tiff's disease was not caused by his work, but a medical witness called for the plaintiff said that the plaintiff's condition as a whole could be, and in his opinion was, greatly aggravated by working at the defective lathe in constant fear of danger and subsequently at the heavier machine.

Held that there was evidence on which a jury could reasonably find that the physical change in the structure of the plaintiff's brain was accelerated by his work; on this finding the plaintiff had suffered a "bodily injury" within the meaning of sec. 116, and was entitled to a gratuity.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court) Deeble V. Nott, (1940) 58 W.N. (N.S.W.) 32, reversed.

65 CLR 105

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

In an action brought in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Daniel Percy Deeble sued Melville Charles Nott, a nominal defendant on behalf of the Government of New South Wales, for the sum of £300, the amount of a gratuity to which he claimed to be entitled by virtue of the provisions of sec. 116 of the Government Railways Act 1912-1934 (N.S.W.).

Sec. 116 provides that a gratuity

shall be payable to any officer who is incapacitated from the further discharge of his duties by reason of bodily injuries received in the course of his duty, and who retires from the service."

Deeble entered the service of the Railway Commissioners of New South Wales as a turner in 1911. In 1930 he suffered from neuras- thenia, which caused his absence from work for about fourteen weeks. For a long time prior to 18th July 1933…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Deeble v Nott

Details

AGLC: Deeble v Nott [1941] HCA 11
Case: [1941] HCA 11
Decision Date: 21 April 1941

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Daniel Percy Deeble, sued the respondent, Melville Charles Nott (a nominal defendant representing the Government of New South Wales), for a gratuity under section 116 of the Government Railways Act 1912-1934 (N.S.W.). Deeble claimed he was incapacitated from his duties due to bodily injuries sustained in the course of his employment and had retired from the service. The core of the dispute concerned whether Deeble's condition constituted "bodily injuries" as contemplated by the Act, and whether his work had contributed to this condition.

The High Court was required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find that Deeble was incapacitated by reason of "bodily injuries" received in the course of his duty. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff's nervous disease, which involved organic deterioration of brain cells, and which was aggravated by his work and the fear associated with it, qualified as a "bodily injury" under section 116. The court also had to assess whether the jury's affirmative finding that the progress of his disease was accelerated by mental disturbances caused by his work was a legally sustainable conclusion.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the term "bodily injuries" in section 116 was not confined to external or traumatic injuries but extended to any physical injury to the body, including the acceleration or aggravation of an existing disease. The court found that there was evidence, particularly from a medical specialist, suggesting that Deeble's work at a defective lathe, and the resulting fear, along with subsequent heavier work, had aggravated his underlying nervous condition and accelerated the physical deterioration of his brain. This aggravation, the court reasoned, constituted a bodily injury received in the course of his duty, thereby entitling him to the gratuity.

The High Court set aside the decision of the Supreme Court and ordered that a verdict be entered for the appellant for £300, with costs awarded to the appellant.

Orders